Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years

I know humans haven't been keeping records of glacial ice melt for that long but this information has to be alarming.

No, it doesn't "ha[ve] to be alarming" at all--it's only alarming if you subscribe to the idea that such melting is going to cause some extreme
cataclysm for the entirety (or even most of) the earth.

I don't believe that. Sure, a rise in sea levels (which obviously happened before us at levels higher than they are now, which is an undeniable
reality) will cause problems for some locations along low-lying land, but hell, maybe we should have learned from history and not built massive cities
along coast lines that we now changes as time progresses.

Humanity will go on, civilization will go on, and the world will go on with a rise in sea levels.

This is the type of thing that makes me chuckle because of its alarmism and absolutism, something in which scientists should not be engaging:

Co-author Profe Martin Siegert, from the Grantham Institute, said: “Some of the changes Antarctica will face are already irreversible, such
as the loss of some ice shelves, but there is a lot we can prevent or reverse."

See, anyone who knows even a tiny bit about the climatic history of our planet knows that the amount of ice on Antarctica has fluctuated from
little-to-none, to obviously more than what we have now. Nothing is "irreversible" when it comes to nature.

But here we are, with a co-author of the study saying that we need to act now with immediate and massive government regulations or all is lost.

I guess that we'll see, won't we?

Whatever happened to that study within the past year that said Earth's warming is advancing much slower than anticipated and that we have a longer
time to deal with claimed AGW? Maybe Antarctica didn't get that memo?

Also, how does this lost ice compare to the ice that has been gaining mass in other parts of Antarctica? Oh, these stories on this report
don't discuss that, do they? Has something secretly changed about that?

Mankind needs to stop this snowball before it's too big to stop. That's what I think. What says ATS?

Well, I'm not the whole of ATS, for sure, but I will ask you these questions:

- What is YOUR solution to the change in melting ice?

- What percentage of the cause is because of man versus nature?

- Why do you think that mankind should do anything when we don't even know if this is more nature versus AGW?

- Are you certain that this isn't because of increased volcanic activity on that portion of the continent?

You'll note that the stories, at least the ones that I read, don't talk about actual causes, they just make assumptions and allusions to anthropogenic
global warming.

Sorry, I just need more than presumptions and correlation-equals-causation fallacies. These are just observations being reported and nothing more.

edit on 13-6-2018 by SlapMonkey because: coding got the best of me

edit on 13-6-2018 by SlapMonkey because: added
strikethrough, as I glossed over that part in the OP's story (I read that particular one after others and after I wrote this comment)

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Listen to the math they are using. Total bs imo.

A .5 mm of a rise in the oceans levels?

There is no freakin way that number is legit. The ocean isn't a bowl of water. Too many variables.

More things than I can think of change water levels. Natural erosion of land into the sea, for one. On shore erosion, and especially from rivers like
the Mississippi dumping massive amounts of silt into the ocean, underwater volcanoes, same thing, sewage, dumping, etc, etc...

On top of that, what is their margin of error for their test, for reading a body of water that is always moving up and down with the tide?

.5 mm is thinner than my wiskers

Sounds like fake science, prior to some bs carbon scam.

You know. Instead of arrogantly dismissing it off hand and pretending you are smarter than actual scientists you can actually research their
methodology and attempt to understand it.

You know, instead of arrogantly dismissing actual valid points about what can cause changes in sea level no bigger than the thickness of the lead on
my mechanical pencil, you should maybe understand that these things matter in the discussion about sea-level rise.

But seriously, have you read the whole of the white paper? Do you understand it? I've looked and it and read some of it, and I certainly don't
understand it enough to explain it to anyone, so I wouldn't expect them to, either. If you can explain it, that's awesome--you should do so instead of
berating others who can't. I am absolutely suspect as to the way that they determine the mass, though. I don't see that as foolproof in the least.

Be part of the solution to the apparent misunderstandings that you imply people might have. Your comment implies that this report addresses all of
these things, yet don't prove it. The onus lies with you to prove that they did if that is your implied claim, because all that Mandroid7 did was
point out realistic catalysts to sea-level change and ask questions--two things that should be applauded in discussions about science.

I tend to agree with M7 that the claimed sea-level rise is garbage, but if it's not, it's irrelevant to anything and everything on a global scale.

It's the thickness of the piece of lead that I'm staring at right now--the bubble from a whale fart near the shoreline would raise the local sea level
that much temporarily. (yes, I'm being silly to make a point right there)

My comment suggests that people should do their own research on methodology instead of just assuming that something isn't true because it sounds
implausible. That's it. Anything else you read into it is your own fault seeing as you are clearly itching for an argument here.

Not itching for an argument at all, I just find it rather hypocritical when people tell others to do research on something if they are unwilling to
explain it or provide a direct link to do so.

To be fair, though, I have done that out of exhaustion before, but only when the information is very easily found and understood--this doesn't fall
under that, hence my frustration with the call out without any counterpoint.

Sincerely, though, I don't want to bicker about it, so if you don't want to discuss their methodology's soundness or (if there are any) faults, that's
fine. I don't have the time to scour the white paper any more in-depth than I already have.

originally posted by: lostbook
More melting! Well ATS, it appears that the runaway melting if the Antarctic is going full steam ahead and is getting faster. Scientists are saying
that this melting has already increased three-fold since 2012 based offf of satellite data.

That's a lot of melting but what you never hear about in these studies is how much new ice is forming. Granted, the melting may be getting ahead of
the freezing but I don't think you can determine sea level rise without factoring that in.

That's a lot of melting but what you never hear about in these studies is how much new ice is forming. Granted, the melting may be getting ahead of
the freezing but I don't think you can determine sea level rise without factoring that in.

I wonder how much of a impact all that water vapor around Hawaii will contribute to new snow and ice ? Speaking of CO2 and where its
measured ,wouldn't whats happening there kind of put a spike in the CO2 monitoring . Gee so much to think about and so little knowledge of how to put
it into a un-biased graph .

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.